Do you prefer the OF or EF of Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it doesn’t help. Because the point remains, SP was not issued because of the SSPX.
 
So the Pope’s Letter to the Bishops and Cardinal Sean O’Malley’s statements for it’s intended release was false ?

OK, believe what you will, but it states clearly the reasons.

Jim
 
You can continue to push your criticisms of SP all you want. It doesn’t change reality.
 
I urge you to read "The Catechism of the Crisis of the Catholic Church ". Even though people act like the SSPX is such terrible people , many of their concerns are completely valid.

The Missal of Pius V was never abrogated. The latest typical edition of 1962 never ceased to be a form of Mass. The Mass of Paul Vl . Ever wonder why Paul Vl said “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church”?

I am not saying the new form is bad. It just has some errors that were implemented with the best intentions but did not end up being overall good for the Church.
 
jas84173 said:
Yah but there is no need for us to shake each other’s hands
Click to expand...
There’s a great many things that take place during the celebration of both the OF and EF Masses that aren’t necessary to render a valid Mass. Thank goodness that neither Mass is designed around the ideal of utilitarianism… That would be horrible.
 
Last edited:
jas84173 said:
I am not saying the new form is bad. It just has some errors that were implemented with the best intentions but did not end up being overall good for the Church.
Click to expand...
The promulgation of the OF Mass was indeed GOOD for the Church. Its hideously poor implementation and the fact that many used this terrible implementation (and the so called “spirit” of Vatican II) as excuses for all sorts of non-authorized shenanigans has been TERRIBLE for the Church.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Prior to Motu proprio, yes because full use was not allowed and for good reason.

The division we’re seeing today in the Catholic Church over this, as evident in this very thread, is the reason why Pope John Paul II refused to compromise with Bishop Lefebvre.

We’re suppose to be one Church, not a church of Novus Ordo Catholics and TLM Catholics
Click to expand...
Now that we are actually seeing the disappointing fruits of SP (particularly the divisions as you note), I have to agree.
 
Oh yes, those disappointing fruits. All those prospering religious communities like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King. All those restored churches and magnificent liturgies. Yeah, really disappointing fruits.
 
Spyridon said:
The 1983 Code of Canon Law dispensed of the requirement for women to veil.

However, that’s only the requirement. It is still strongly encouraged for women to veil.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t about “veiling”, it was about covering their heads. Sadly for some, veils and mantillas have become crowns of false modesty for some. My wife was actually asked to remove her (quite respectful) hat so that she could pin a paper towel to her head.

The ushers at that EF Mass – and whomever directed them to make such assertions clear have no clue about what’s going on.
 
KMG said:
Oh yes, those disappointing fruits. All those prospering religious communities like the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King. All those restored churches and magnificent liturgies. Yeah, really disappointing fruits.
Click to expand...
Right, when summed together don’t create much more than a rounding error for the entirety of the Latin Rite.
 
Oh yes, the numbers game. Do everything you can to wipe out a liturgy, and then note that not that many people want it anyway.
 
KMG said:
Oh yes, the numbers game. Do everything you can to wipe out a liturgy, and then note that not that many people want it anyway.
Click to expand...
What I think you are failing to consider is that the Vernacular Liturgy was issued, that’s what the people wanted.

Not all the people, of course. But most certainly did.

Not to denigrate the Old School in any way, but people were onboard for the changes. They signed up in big numbers to be readers and EM’s, and embraced the new protocols.
 
Yes, the collapse in Mass attendance in the West certainly testifies to people being “onboard.”
 
The bishops of the world seem to have disagreed with you. The vote was 2,147 to 4.
 
Well, when you have ambiguity such as “Latin to be retained in the liturgy” and “bishops can insert as much vernacular as they wish” (not exact translation) among other things, what’s there not to like by anyone?

Who were those 4, by the way?
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
My wife was actually asked to remove her (quite respectful) hat so that she could pin a paper towel to her head.

The ushers at that EF Mass – and whomever directed them to make such assertions clear have no clue about what’s going on.
Click to expand...
That’s messed up.

Sounds like a case of false modesty, phariseeism, and ignorance all mixed together.
 
Augustinian said:
What I think you are failing to consider is that the Vernacular Liturgy was issued, that’s what the people wanted.

Not all the people, of course. But most certainly did.
Click to expand...
They had no choice. And furthermore, Latin was dropped as a required language taught in high school.
 
Rome conquered Britain in 55 and 54 BC. Your knowledge of history is a tad bit lacking. France, and up to part of Germany, was subjugated by about 58 BC.
 
Right, rounding error. In case you haven’t read up on it, the Archdioceses of New York and Chicago alone are in the process of closing 1/3 of their parishes.

However, to be fair, the Church is growing in Asia and Africa, where incidentally they do Gregorian chant in some places.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top